Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ROSKILL,LORD JUSTICE CUMMING-BRUCE,THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 18 October 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Civ J1018-1 |
| Docket Number | 1979 V No. 855 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 18 October 1979 |
[1979] EWCA Civ J1018-1
The Master of The Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Roskill and
Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
(Mr. Justice Watkins)
MR. J. BEVERIDGE, Q.C. and MR. C. MOGER (instructed by Messrs. Ward Bowie, London agents for Messrs. Reed-Herbert Gegan & Co., Leicester) appeared on behalf Of the Plaintiff (Respondent).
MR. G. LIGHTMAN (instructed by Messrs. Sharpe Pritchard & Co., London agents for Messrs. R.D. Ogden. Great Yarmouth) appeared on behalf of the Defendant (Appellant).
The National Front is a political party. This is one of its principles: The National Front stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It therefore is opposed to all non-European immigration into Britain and is committed to a programme for the resettlement overseas of those non-European people already here. Later it says: "The National Front is implacably opposed to Communism and all other forms of Marxian Socialism". Those principles are abhorrent to many. Nevertheless it is a political party. It is entitled to make its views known, so long as it does so peaceably and without inflaming others to violence.
The National Front has been in existence for some years. At the end of last year 1976 it made arrangements for its annual conference to be held this year 1979 in Great Yarmouth at the Wellington Pier Pavilion on the 26th and 27th days of October 1979. To that end it entered, by its officers, into negotiations with the officers of the Great Yarmouth Borough Council. The council was at that time controlled by a Conservative majority. They were fully aware of all the difficulties which might ensue - even the tumults and dusturbances which might ensue - if the conference were held there. In the course of the negotiations, there was much discussion in the council. The public in the gallery made their voices heard against any such conference being held. Nevertheless, after two or three meetings, the council deliberately decided to allow the National Front to hold its conference there.
To show that it was a deliberate decision, I will read one or two letters which passed. The first is a letter of the 15th March, 1979 from the Chairman of the Executive Council of the National Front to the Chief Executive Officer of the council:
"I believe that some elements in the opposition to our Conference are claiming that our application has no merit because it is merely a stunt for publicity purposes. Let me assure you that claim is quite untrue. This is a sincere application for a facility to hold our Annual Conference, which is to be held in October each year. We are prepared to meet any reasonable conditions which the Council deems fit to impose in the way of hire charge and insurance. The sincerity of our application arises from the fact that Great Yarmouth Borough Council is one of the few Councils in Britain to have taken a principled stand on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, by deciding that it will hire out its facility to any lawful political party, including ours, irrespective of its political colours. This is why we have made our application, because so many other Councils have allowed themselves to be pressured by communist elements, left-wing Trades Councils and church groups into denying us such facilities on political grounds. This is why we are putting our faith in the decision of your Council".
That letter was written before any contract was concluded. In the light of it, and after hearing arguments on both sides, on the 27th March of this year the council of Great Yarmouth approved the letting of the halls for the conference. They referred the details to a committee. There was a substantial fee for the hire of the halls. There were also to be safeguards by way of insurance. Arrangements were made with the police so as to ensure security during the conference.
The contract was concluded on the 4th April, 1979 by a letter from the Chief Executive Officer's Department, saying: "… the Council have now agreed to let you have the accommodation on the following terms". They set out the terms. Over £6,000 was to be paid down by the National Front for the facility of holding their conference in the Wellington Pier Pavilion: and this sum was paid down at once.
But there was an election pending for a new council on the 3rd May. This coming conference was a big issue in the election at Great Yarmouth. The Labour Party were against it. On the 12th April, 1979 the local paper the "Yarmouth Mercury" came out with the headline "Labour 'will reverse decision' if elected". It was plain that if the Labour Party got into power at the election it would do its best to reverse the decision about allowing the National Front to hire the hall.
That is what happened. On the 3rd May the Labour Party came into control at Great Yarmouth. One of the first things the new council did was to hold a special meeting on the 15th May. It passed a resolution that the approval for the use of the conference halls by the National Front be rescinded, the offer of facilities be withdrawn, and any payment sent back. So there it was. The new Labour controlled council put everything into reverse.
Faced with this difficulty, the National Front tried to find a place elsewhere in which to hold their conference. They tried both in England and Wales. They are trying even now. No other town or city will receive them. So they have brought proceedings in the courts by a writ issued on the 6th August of this year. They claim that a contract was made for the use of this conference hall for those two days, that it has beenrepudiated, and 1hey claim specific performance of that contract.
The matter has come speedily before the courts. It came before Mr. Justice Tasker Watkins. After hearing the case argued for a day and a half, Mr. Justice Tasker Watkins (and I would like to pay tribute to his judgment, which was prepared very quickly) came to the conclusion that the National Front should be entitled to go ahead with their conference and hold it in the Wellington Pier Pavilion. He granted a decree of specific performance accordingly ordering the borough council to hold to their contract and allow the National Front to come in.
Mr. Lightman took some technical points for the Labour-controlled council. First, he said that this was an arguable case and ought not to be dealt with under order 14. I reject that point. In many cases now, when all the issues are clear and the point of substance can be decided as well now as hereafter, we have repeatedly decided matters under the order 14 procedure.
Second, Mr. Lightman referred us to a passage in Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 23, at page 464: "A letting for a single day to view a procession cannot be specifically enforced", citing Glasse v. Woolgar and Roberts (1897) 41 Solicitors' Journal 573. That case is quite out of date. Mr. Lightman cited other cases too saying that a lease for a year could not be specifically enforced. But I do not think we need go through them now. Suffice it to quote Gilbey v. Cossey (1912) Law Times Reports, Volume 106, page 607 when Mr. Justice Darling said at page 608: "At one time it was said in the Courts of Chancery that there could not be a decree for the specific performance of an agreement from year to year,upon the ground that it was inconceivable that a case could be heard within a twelvemonth. That idea, however, has now been given up, and the court been make such an order before a tenancy of this kind would have expired". So that point fails.
Third, Mr. Lightman submitted that the council could determine the licence efectively despite the contract. He relied on Thompson v. Park (1944) 1 King's Bench 408. In that case two schoolmasters amalgamated their schools. The one who was in the school gave a licence to the other to come on to the premises. Later on he revoked the licence. The other then forced his way in. The court granted an injunction to stop the other from entering the premises. Lord Justice Goddard said as to a licence (at page 410):
"Whether it has been rightly withdrawn or wrongly withdrawn matters nothing for this purpose. The licensee, once his licence is withdrawn, has no right to re-enter on the land. If he does, he is a common trespasser".
Basing himself on that dictum and on a passage in Salmon on Torts, Mr. Lightman said that a licensor has a power effectively to determine the licence. He may not have a right to do so lawfully, but he has a power to do so effectively. So that the licensee could not get specific performance of the licence, but only damages.
That is not good law. The decision of the House of Lords in Wintergarden Theatre (London) Ltd. v. Millennium Productions Ltd (1948) Appeal Cases 173 has made all the difference. Viscount Simon said at page 189:
"… in the sale of a ticket to enter premises and witness a particular event, such as a ticket for a seat at a particular performance at a theatre or for entering private ground towitness a day's sport. In this last class of case, the implication of the arrangement, however it may be classified in law, plainly is that the ticket entitles the purchaser to enter and, if he behaves himself, to remain on the premises until the end of the event which he has paid his money to witness".
Since the Wintergarden case, it is clear that once a man has entered under his contract of licence, he cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ismail Abdullah v Tenaga Nasional Berhad
-
Brightside Mechanical & Electrical Services Group Ltd and Another v Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company Ltd
...That precisely also was what the courts did in the two cases referred to in my judgment, namely: Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council [1981] QB 202 and European Asian Bank AG v Punjab & Sind Bank (No 2) [1983] 1 WLR 642; [1983] 2 All ER 508. In the first case, the plaintiff claimed for ......
-
Jaya Kumar v Subramaniam Mohana Krishnan and Another
...89 LJKB 40 (folld) European Asian Bank AG v Punjab and Sind Bank (No 2) [1983] 1 WLR 642 (folld) Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council [1981] QB 202 (folld) Business Registration Act (Cap 32, 1985 Rev Ed)s 17 (1) (consd) Rules of the Subordinate Courts1986O 14 (consd) Registration of Bus......
- Public Bank Bhd v Mohd Nadzri A Halim
-
Specific Performance: Sale of Land
...rent the hall. The National Front sought to rent alternative halls but could not ind 105 Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council (1980), [1981] QB 202 (CA) [ Verrall ]. See also Glebe District Hockey Club Inc v New South Wales Harness Racing Club Ltd , [2001] NSWSC 401 at paras 19 and 26, ......
-
Table of cases
...v Harrison, [1989] OJ No 1217 (Dist Ct) .....................................467, 472 Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council (1980), [1981] QB 202, [1980] 3 WLR 258, [1980] 1 All ER 839 (CA) ........................................ 507–8 Vestby v Galloway, 2020 ABQB 361 ........................
-
Table of Cases
...v. Harrison, [1989] O.J. No. 1217 (Dist. Ct.) .............................. 334, 338 Verrall v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council (1980), [1981] Q.B. 202, [1980] 3 W.L.R. 258, [1980] 1 All E.R. 839 (C.A.) ...................... 365 Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v. Bestnet Europe Ltd. [2009] All E.......
-
Specific Performance: Sale of Land
...performance; however, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the property satisfies the uniqueness test as outlined above. 74 70 (1980), [1981] Q.B. 202 (C.A.). 71 See Glasse v. Woolgar & Roberts (No.2) (1897), 41 Sol. J. 573. 72 Harris v. McNeely (2000), 47 O.R. (3d) 161 at para. 12 (C.A.); S......